Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37126336›Full record

Trial reportTranslational vision science & technology2023

Visual Field Pointwise Analysis of the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Weight Trial (IIH:WT).

Susan P Mollan, Samuel Bodoza, Áine Ní Mhéalóid, James L Mitchell, Neil R Miller, Giovanni Montesano, David P Crabb, Michael Wall, Kristian Brock, Alexandra J Sinclair

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Susan P MollanBirmingham Neuro-Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Samuel BodozaInformatics, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Áine Ní MhéalóidBirmingham Neuro-Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
James L MitchellDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.
Neil R MillerWilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Giovanni MontesanoNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
David P CrabbDivision of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.
Michael WallDepartment of Neurology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Kristian BrockCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alexandra J SinclairDepartment of Neurology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-CS-011-028Medical Research Council MR/K015184/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study was designed to determine if point analysis of the Humphrey visual field (HVF) is an effective outcome measure for people with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) compared with mean deviation (MD). Methods: Using the IIH Weight Trial data, we performed a pointwise analysis of the numerical retinal sensitivity. We then defined a medically treated cohort as having MDs between -2 dB and -7 dB and calculated the number of points that would have the ability to change by 7 dB. Results: The HVF 24-2 mean ± SD MD in the worse eye was -3.5 ± 1.1 dB (range, -2.0 to -6.4 dB). Total deviation demonstrated a preference for the peripheral and blind spot locations to be affected. Points between 0 dB and -10 dB demonstrated negligible ability to improve, compared with those between -10 dB and -25 dB. For the evaluation of the feasibility for a potential medical intervention trial, only 346 points were available for analysis between -10 dB and -25 dB bilaterally, compared with 4123 points in baseline sensitivities of 0 to -10 dB. Conclusions: Patients with IIH have mildly affected baseline sensitivities in the visual field based on HVF analyzer findings, and the majority of points do not show substantial change over 24 months in the setting of a randomized clinical trial. Most patients with IIH who are eligible for a medical treatment trial generally have the mildest affected baseline sensitivities. In such patients, pointwise analysis offers no advantage over MD in detection of visual field change.

Indexed as

Pseudotumor CerebriHumansVisual FieldsVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

PMID37126336
PMCPMC10153590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.